Because they looked at clusters of symptoms, rather than actual causes.
Precisely my point.
As for ADHD etc; you do realise they changed the treatments and clustering precisely because of insight in physical processes?!
I stand by that. In fact, historically whenever they did this they caused a lot of harm.
I would beg to disagree: "The DSM is a bunch of nonsense. As long as [...], itβs worthless."
> DSM when not providing the underlying physical processes is worthless.
And when does the DSM ever provide the "underlying physical process"? It certainly doesn't for ADHD or any other chapters I happen to have read, which would make them worthless according to your criteria despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And while I haven't read all 1000 pages of the DSM because it's not exactly my idea of a good time, I don't think it provides that kind of information in any chapter because we simply don't understand these disorders to that extent, as your original comment correctly observed.
Claiming that DSM-5 is "worthless" simply because it doesn't provide physical mechanisms that cause the disorders is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not the other way around.
> how many have been ruined or ended in part due to the guidelines DSM
You tell us, how many have been ruined? What "guidelines" are you referring to?